Rabindra Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rabindra Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing and setting aside of the punishment order dated 10.04.2019 (Annexure-5) and the appellate order dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure-8); reinstatement of the petitioner in service forthwith; remittal of the departmental proceeding to the disciplinary authority to continue after serving the enquiry report, following the principles of natural justice; pending I.As disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the punishment of dismissal and the appellate/confirmation orders are vitiated by procedural irregularity because the enquiry report was never furnished to the petitioner, leaving him unaware of the CDR contents on which the departmental proceeding was founded, and thereby causing him prejudice. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the impugned order of punishment suffered from procedural irregularity (the enquiry report was admittedly not furnished to the petitioner), the Court quashed and set aside the punishment order dated 10.04.2019 (Annexure-5) and the appellate order dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure-8).

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith.

Key takeaways

The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority with a direction to continue the proceeding, pass an appropriate order after serving the enquiry report to the petitioner, and follow the principles of natural justice.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(S) No. 3393 of 2022 (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi) — Deepak Roshan, J. — Order No. 07 dated 7th April 2026. Dismissal from service following District Departmental Proceeding No. 21/14 (decision dated 14.05.2014, Annexure-3): writ petition sought certiorari against the dismissal order dated 10.04.2019 (Annexure-5), the appellate order of Respondent No. 5 (Annexure-7) affirming it, and the confirmation order dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure-8) of Respondents No. 2 and 3, pleading that the enquiry report was never supplied, so the petitioner could not learn the CDR contents on which the proceeding was founded. The counter affidavit dated 16.03.2026 admitted (para 5) the enquiry report was not separately furnished; State counsel did not oppose, conceding the procedural irregularity was evident. Held: the punishment order dated 10.04.2019 and the appellate order dated 28.12.2020 are quashed and set aside; the petitioner is reinstated in service forthwith; the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to continue the proceeding after serving the enquiry report and following the principles of natural justice. Writ application partly allowed; pending I.As disposed of.

2026:JHHC:10121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 3393 of 2022

Rabindra Oraon, aged about 39 years, S/o-Bana Oraon, R/o- Village Purshottampur, P.O.- Purshottampur, P.S.-Panki, District- Palamu, Jharkhand. ... … Petitioner(s)

... … Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State of Jharkhand.

Director General of Police, having its office at DPRD Building, H.E.C. Dhurwa, Р.О.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN 834004.

The Inspector General of Police, having its office at Forest Officers' Colony, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN834001.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagannathpur, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN-834004.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, having its office at Opp. Police Line, Sarvoday Nagar, Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj, District - Daltonganj, Jharkhand, PIN-822101.

The Superintendent of Police, Latehar, P.O. & P.S.-Latehar, District - Latehar, Jharkhand, PIN-829206. ... … Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioner(s) For the Respondent(s)

:Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate

:Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II

Order No. 07 /Dated: 7^th April 2026

The instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner for the

following reliefs:

“1.i. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing of order/punishment of dismissal that has been inflicted upon the petitioner, vide order dated 10.04.2019 (Annexure-5) as also the entire departmental proceeding initiated vide District Departmental Proceeding No. 21/14, decision taken vide order dated 14.05.2014 (Annexure- 3).

ii. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing of the order of appeal, passed by Respondent No. 5 (Annexure-7), whereby the order of punishment of dismissal from services, passed by the original order of punishment has been affirmed by the appellate authority.

iii. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s),

1

2026:JHHC:10121

particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure-8), passed by Respondent No. 2 and 3, whereby the original order of punishment, dismissing the petitioner from services has been confirmed by the respondent authority. iv. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in services, with all consequential benefits, including the arrears of salary and full back wages.

AND/OR

v. Further prayer is for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of punishment on the ground of procedural irregularities, inasmuch as, there is specific averment in paragraph no. 26 of the writ application that the enquiry report was not provided to the petitioner and the same has caused prejudice to the petitioner in view of the fact that nothing has been disclosed to the petitioner in the departmental proceeding as to what were the contents of CDR, on the basis of which firstly departmental proceeding was initiated. For brevity, paragraph no.26 of the writ application is extracted hereinbelow:

“26. That it is stated and submitted that the non-providing of enquiry report to the petitioner has caused prejudice, in view of the fact that the petitioner could not know, and nothing has been disclosed to him in the departmental proceeding, as to what were the contents of CDR, on the basis of which firstly departmental proceeding was initiated and thereafter, he was awarded with the punishment on dismissal from services.”

3. From the counter affidavit dated 16.03.2026 filed by the respondents it appears that the said averment made in paragraph no. 26 has been admitted in paragraph no.5, inasmuch as, it has been stated that the enquiry report was not separately furnished/supplied to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was informed about the charges found proved. However, the mode of communication has not been stated in that paragraph.

For brevity paragraph no. 5 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 16.03.2026 is extracted hereinbelow:

“5. That it is humbly submitted that the inquiry report was not separately furnished/supplied to the petitioner. However, the

2

2026:JHHC:10121

Petitioner was informed about the charges found proved against him and the proposed punishment, thereby affording him a reasonable opportunity to submit his defence explanation.”

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the admitted position, the petitioner may be reinstated in service and the matter be remitted to the disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter after serving the enquiry report.

5. Ld. State Counsel could not oppose the said contention, as the procedural irregularity is evident.

6. Having regard to the above, since the impugned order of punishment suffers from procedural irregularity; as such, the impugned order of punishment dated 10.04.2019 (Annexure-5), as well as the appellate order dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure-8); are hereby, quashed and set aside. The Petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith.

7. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority with a direction to continue the proceeding and pass an appropriate order after serving the enquiry report to the petitioner and also follow the principles of natural justice.

8. The instant writ application is partly allowed. Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

7^th April 2026 Amit Uploaded on 04/05/2026

3